DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Model tank carrying module is configured to (Claim 1 -3 ) Liquid inlet assemblies are configured to (Claim 1) First stirring assembly is configured to (Claim 1) Measurement assembly is configured to (Claim 1) Spreading assembly is configured to (Claim 1 , 8-9 ) Stirring assembly is configured to (Claim 1) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 6 “liquid inlet assemblies” should be --a liquid inlet assemblies-- ; In claim 1, line 16 “the stirring assembly” should be -- the second stirring assembly--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim s 1 , 7 “AB liquid mixing module” , “AB mixture sample” and “AB mixture” are unclear and indefinite since “AB” can mean two distinct components (liquid A and liquid B) that are separately added and mixed and labeled “AB” , or a s a single pre-made mix labeled “AB”, further in lines 7-8 “A/B” is unclear and indefinite since “A/B” can mean “ A and B or A or B” . F urther, the specification fails to define “AB” as separate liquids therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Claim 1 recites the limitation " an AB mixture " in line 16 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “AB mixture” is a different or the same as the “AB mixture sample” since the claim limitations and specification fail to define “AB” a s “liquid A and Liquid B” , therefore not allowing a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty . Claims 2-13 are rejected because the depend on rejected claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, th e prior art of CN 113551956 and CN 106841111 are the closest prior art in regards to applicant’s invention, with CN 113551956 disclosing an automatic transparent soil material preparing test device having a test base, track, transparent soil model groove, mixing and stirring system, a vacuum saturation system, and a pre-processing consolidation system . CN 106841111 discloses a V-shaped prism measuring soil refractive index. The prior art of CN 113551956 and CN 106841111 alone or in combination fails to disclose or make obvious a refractive index measurement module comprises a sampling assembly and a measurement assembly, the sampling assembly that is able to suck a mixture sample from the model tank and transfer the mixture sample to the measurement assembly, and the measurement assembly is configured to measure a refractive index of the mixture sample . Further, the prior art fails to disclose that a solid particle spreading module comprises a spreading assembly and a second stirring assembly, the second spreading assembly is configured to spread solid particles into the model tank, and the second stirring assembly is configured to stir and mix the solid particles and a mixture , and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 1 . Claim s 2-13 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allow able subject matter of claim 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2430 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 6:30am-3pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2287 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL P STAFIRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 27, 2026